Mooney "Trapped on Top"

[201er]

Just now, carusoam said:

For those who have had the lapsed IR...

How lapsed was it? And What was required to clean the rust off of the lapsed IR?

You can tell us all about it

I let mine lapse last year. I was really busy with the wedding and stuff. I wasn't doing any major xcountry, mostly just local flying. The changes took some time for adjustment so instrument flying wasn't a priority. I kept it as a backup capability but not as a primary means for getting around. Then right before my Caribbean trip #2, I went to an IMC club wings course to refresh and I got an IPC to be legal again.

The IPC wasn't sufficient practice to be flying hard IFR again so I would still choose my weather wisely. However, it was great for filing and pushing through some high enroute clouds. After a few easy approaches in VMC during my trip, I was prepared to tackle the hard IFR approach into familiar Fort Pierce when the time came. After flying almost daily, I was super proficient in operating the plane and got a bunch of instrument time enroute as well. I was prepared to put all of my attention to flying the approach and doing it pretty well.

It feels good to be back!

[Hank]

I've lapsed a couple of times, but never enough to require an IPC. Did one once, just because I'd been non-current for 3-4 months and had only flown practice approaches under the hood for a year before that anyway. This was just after repairing my doghouse and carb heat and replacing a split muffler at annual, I had to relearn all of my power settings as I gained a good 12 mph. 

Flew lots of practice between flights with the CFII. Even then, the first time I hit clouds enroute over N. Ga. was a nervous time for the first few minutes before I settled back into normal routine and could relax my left hand. About 15-20 minutes actual, the last half felt good. Then I popped out into scattered-to-broken in W. NC to descend for a VFR landing.

Somehow losing night currency doesn't bother me at all. If it's calm enough, I'll take off in the opposite direction each time, much easier at my former 3000' base than the 5000' one I moved to. Then the next time it gets dark on me, even if it's the next day and I haven't flown at night in many months, I still enjoy the calm, smooth air and pretty lights on the ground. Going actual for the first time in a while is just not as peaceful of an experience . . . .

[Marauder]

Mike -- we should schedule some safety pilot sessions this summer for the NJ Mooney group. Or at least post some emails when people are looking for someone.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[bradp]

I let mine lapse last year when the new baby arrived.   I had also moved and didn't really know anybody locally who I could ask to be a safety pilot.   I got an IPC and it was okay.  Not like my IFR check ride where I got put through the ringer.  It does feel good to be current, though.  

New question for the current instrument pilots.  Do you maintain currency by 1) flying enough that it just happens, 2) seeking instrument conditions whenever possible and logging approaches etc, 3) relying on a safety pilot or 4) some other way?  

 

One thing that I at least try to do in the #4 category is fly instrument approaches when in night VMC, or to unfamiliar places, and fly in the system whenever possible.

[201er]

3 hours ago, bradp said:

New question for the current instrument pilots.  Do you maintain currency by 1) flying enough that it just happens, 2) seeking instrument conditions whenever possible and logging approaches etc, 3) relying on a safety pilot or 4) some other way?  

I think #1 is just about impossible for the non-professional pilot! Even if I manage to fly actual IFR 6 times, it's unlikely that the approach will continue in IMC far enough for it to count toward currency. You can fly 50-100 hours in 6 months and not intentionally never once touch IMC!

I mainly relied on #2 to stay instrument current but even finding a day with weather that qualifies isn't easy. It's rare for it to just be 800-1200 overcast and not getting better or worse. If it's getting better, you won't have enough time to get enough approaches in. If it's getting worse, you may get shut out of your home field if it doesn't have great approaches! This method is most real and possibly the best practice but it's more risky too. Not the time you want to find out that you or your plane are deficient.

#3 may be good for people with rated flying partners, but if you're a loaner, it's hard to coordinate someone. It's also a bigger workload than going in actual. You are most likely VFR so you have to worry about separation, airspace, and the stupid foggles! Those damn things let in what you don't want to see and block things you do need.

IPC is better than initial checkride but more intense than just self practice. I think it should be mandatory at least every few years. If you only ever fly a certain kind of IFR or only certain approaches, this is a chance for someone to challenge you outside your familiar zone and point out stuff you may have forgotten. I wish an IPC could count for a BFR, then an IPC every two years would be a great deal.

[Oldguy]

4 hours ago, bradp said:

I let mine lapse last year when the new baby arrived.   I had also moved and didn't really know anybody locally who I could ask to be a safety pilot.   I got an IPC and it was okay.  Not like my IFR check ride where I got put through the ringer.  It does feel good to be current, though.  

New question for the current instrument pilots.  Do you maintain currency by 1) flying enough that it just happens, 2) seeking instrument conditions whenever possible and logging approaches etc, 3) relying on a safety pilot or 4) some other way?  

 

One thing that I at least try to do in the #4 category is fly instrument approaches when in night VMC, or to unfamiliar places, and fly in the system whenever possible.

I try to solve it with #1, use #2 if possible and make sure I stay current with #3 if all of the previous opportunities aren't enough. Every couple of years, I plan on using the MAPA Safety Foundation as #4 for an overall refresher and knock out an IPC and BFR.

[ArtVandelay]

I use 2, but hard to get in south Florida without thunderstorms, occasionally we get mist,fog in the winter. Nothing beats the real thing.

[1964-M20E]

1 hour ago, 201er said:

IPC is better than initial checkride but more intense than just self practice. I think it should be mandatory at least every few years. If you only ever fly a certain kind of IFR or only certain approaches, this is a chance for someone to challenge you outside your familiar zone and point out stuff you may have forgotten. I wish an IPC could count for a BFR, then an IPC every two years would be a great deal.

Why can't you count it as both?  You sit down and review regulations and procedures before the flight, plan a flight then you go up and fly the plane under the hood doing maneuvers slow flight, unusual attitude recovery and approaches.  Unless I'm missing something I think the IPC can count for a BFR.  Further doing all the maneuvers under the hood is far more challenging way to do a BFR.

[DXB]

My limited experience with VFR on top as a low time non-IR pilot has been full of drama, so I'm inclined to avoid trying it again until I finish IR. I've gotten on top intentionally a couple of times, knowing that there was no ceiling forecast at my destination. Once I was dead wrong- as I got close, I realized I might have to fly beyond my destination to get down and so I instead descended early through the first hole i saw in a 4000 ft broken ceiling.   A second time, when clear skies were forecast for a large area around my destination, I got on top a broken-overcast layer around 6000 that extended to the limit of my visibility, to cruise at 7500.  As I saw the holes closing off, I basically just freaked out a bit, turned off course to dive through a hole, landed at the nearest field, and made a different flight plan.  Otherwise I would have been on top the NYC class B shortly and had fewer options to come down.  When I got to my destination (Boston) in that case, the sky clear forecast turned  out correct.   But I had other options to get there in both examples, including going VFR under an acceptable ceiling,  and so the uncertainty and related anxiety were totally unnecessary.

If I do ever get stuck on top, the cockpit tools at my disposal to get out of trouble (after declaring an emergency) seem to be excellent, assuming the ceiling is acceptable below - including terrain awareness on Foreflight and the panel GPS, as well as an autopilot to level the wings in descent. And then I can get synthetic vision for an extra $50 on Foreflight.  Amazing stuff.  

But these tools also tempt me to take risks that probably shouldn't be taken.  Wish I had time to finish the IR this year.

 

[flyboy0681]

5 hours ago, bradp said:

New question for the current instrument pilots.  Do you maintain currency by 1) flying enough that it just happens, 2) seeking instrument conditions whenever possible and logging approaches etc, 3) relying on a safety pilot or 4) some other way?  

 

When I need to practice under the hood I call one of my two partners, one of whom is a CFI. After a few approaches we land and switch sides. This has worked out very well since I earned my ticket two years ago.

 

Question: Should the engine quit, wouldn't it be good practice to pull the Prop knob all the way back? What the consensus on this?

Edited March 31, 2016 by flyboy0681

[Andy95W]

8 minutes ago, 1964-M20E said:

Why can't you count it as both?  You sit down and review regulations and procedures before the flight, plan a flight then you go up and fly the plane under the hood doing maneuvers slow flight, unusual attitude recovery and approaches.  Unless I'm missing something I think the IPC can count for a BFR.  Further doing all the maneuvers under the hood is far more challenging way to do a BFR.

You would need to find an instructor who would be willing to sign off both endorsements for the same flight.  Yes, technically the BFR involves "one hour of ground training and one hour of flight training", but most instructors (myself included) would still want to see things like slow flight, short field landings, stalls, etc. for a BFR.  But with that said, I wouldn't have a problem with it.  It would probably entail 1.5 hours of ground and 1.5-2 hours in the air for a pilot who was well prepared.

[201er]

Just now, DXB said:

My limited experience with VFR on top as a low time non-IR pilot has been full of drama, so I'm inclined to avoid trying it again until I finish IR. I've gotten on top intentionally a couple of times, knowing that there was no ceiling forecast at my destination. Once I was dead wrong- as I got close, I realized I might have to fly beyond my destination to get down and so I instead descended early through the first hole i saw in a 4000 ft broken ceiling. 

I don't like the idea of VFR above a cloud deck for a non-instrument pilot. What if you have a non-emergency but urgent situation? Alternator failure, the runs, sick passenger, lost a mag, etc... You may have to cut your flight short of where you're going. Sure weather could be full clear at departure and destination, but you have no reasonable "outs" while above the clouds enroute. Furthermore, as a non-capable instrument pilot, this sort of urgent situation is the last place you want to be discovering whether or not yo are capable of making an instrument descent. Since you are not rated, any kind of descent through clouds would either be an emergency or a busting of regs.

Any of that seems just too much to me. So until I was instrument rated, I would not fly above anything becoming more than scattered and frankly even then would try to stay below. Also goes to show why instrument capability is so useful and important. It is a whole lot nicer and smoother up above the layer!

Lastly, just a technicality, but you were not "VFR on top" because you have to be IFR capable to be VFR on top. You were flying VFR above. lol

[cnoe]

5 hours ago, bradp said: New question for the current instrument pilots.  Do you maintain currency by 1) flying enough that it just happens, 2) seeking instrument conditions whenever possible and logging approaches etc, 3) relying on a safety pilot or 4) some other way?  

 

Question: Should the engine quit, wouldn't it be good practice to pull the Prop knob all the way back? What the consensus on this?

Absolutely! It makes a helluva difference in glide.

[Deb]

18 minutes ago, 1964-M20E said:

Why can't you count it as both?  You sit down and review regulations and procedures before the flight, plan a flight then you go up and fly the plane under the hood doing maneuvers slow flight, unusual attitude recovery and approaches.  Unless I'm missing something I think the IPC can count for a BFR.  Further doing all the maneuvers under the hood is far more challenging way to do a BFR.

As N1395W says, it can. The flight review is instruction, and requires a minimum of one hour of ground training in addition to a mininum af one hour of flight training. The IPC is a proficiency check, with proscribed tasks. 14 CFR 61.56 (flight review) states that it can be accomplished in combination with the requirements of 14 CFR 61.57 (recent experience). As long as it's OK with the instructor and you get both endorsements, you will have satisfied the regulations. Since the instructor is signing you off, it might be best to discuss what would be required beforehand. 

Here are excerpts from the two regs:

14 CFR 61.56 (h) The requirements of this section may be accomplished in combination with the requirements of Sec. 61.57 and other applicable recent experience requirements at the discretion of the authorized instructor conducting the flight review.

14 CFR 61.57(c) Instrument experience. Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, a person may act as pilot in command under IFR or weather conditions less than the minimums prescribed for VFR only if:

(1) Use of an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship for maintaining instrument experience. Within the 6 calendar months preceding the month of the flight, that person performed and logged at least the following tasks and iterations in an airplane, powered-lift, helicopter, or airship, as appropriate, for the instrument rating privileges to be maintained in actual weather conditions, or under simulated conditions using a view-limiting device that involves having performed the following--

(i) Six instrument approaches.
(ii) Holding procedures and tasks.

(iii) Intercepting and tracking courses through the use of navigational electronic systems.

[201er]

Just now, Deb said:

As N1395W says, it can. The flight review is instruction, and requires a minimum of one hour of ground training in addition to a mininum af one hour of flight training. The IPC is a proficiency check, with proscribed tasks. 14 CFR 61.56 (flight review) states that it can be accomplished in combination with the requirements of 14 CFR 61.57 (recent experience). As long as it's OK with the instructor and you get both endorsements, you will have satisfied the regulations. Since the instructor is signing you off, it might be best to discuss what would be required beforehand.

Makes sense but I haven't come across an instructor that's willing to do that. Technically a BFR is instruction and an IPC is a check flight. You can't fail a BFR but you could fail a check flight.

[carusoam]

There are a couple of things to consider using in the tool box for engine out situations.  None of them are very strong tools...

1) pulling the prop back, lowers the energy used up by friction.  A lot!  In a practice situation, Try adjusting the prop during a flight at low MP. Increase the engine rpm gently, feel the additional braking power...

2) breaking out of the clouds at approach speeds is nice, but...  You see a field off in the distance, but are too slow to make it all the way there.  Slowly descending at a higher speed will retain energy to maneuver a bit more when clear of the bottom of the clouds.

This is not complete logic that is fully usable,. Just additional ideas to consider while practicing.

PP ideas, not a CFI...

Best regards,

-a-

[Marauder]

Just now, Deb said: As N1395W says, it can. The flight review is instruction, and requires a minimum of one hour of ground training in addition to a mininum af one hour of flight training. The IPC is a proficiency check, with proscribed tasks. 14 CFR 61.56 (flight review) states that it can be accomplished in combination with the requirements of 14 CFR 61.57 (recent experience). As long as it's OK with the instructor and you get both endorsements, you will have satisfied the regulations. Since the instructor is signing you off, it might be best to discuss what would be required beforehand.

Makes sense but I haven't come across an instructor that's willing to do that. Technically a BFR is instruction and an IPC is a check flight. You can't fail a BFR but you could fail a check flight.

Mike's post about currency is spot on. For those of us who flew IFR back in the days of "666" can remember what a pain it was to get the 6 hours. I'm fortunate in that I have a long time friend who is CFII with tons of Mooney time who is willing to do an IPC with me every 6 months for a meal.

I press him to press me and I think the challenges he poses add more than doing the safety pilot approach (pun intended). Also, I found that he is willing to be honest and will point out my deficiencies because his ticket is involved (let alone his reputation).

When I fly as a safety pilot for someone, there are times when doing this years ago I should have been more vocal about the sloppiness I saw. Not that I wasn't any better at times, but to turn my back to it, was not doing anyone a favor.

As for the BFR and IPC combo, my CFII friend believes In separation as well. Never asked why, but he doesn't like mixing them up in the same flight.

[Joe Zuffoletto]

It's tough to stay current in Colorado because we don't often have IFR conditions and when we do you don't want to be flying in them. I'm not IFR current as we speak. I use a simulator to stay sharp with the G1000, but I'll be getting an IPC before my next trip. I commonly do this and I've got a great CFII who knows how to put me through the wringer when I do.

[Mooneymite]

11 hours ago, bradp said:

New question for the current instrument pilots.  Do you maintain currency by 1) flying enough that it just happens, 2) seeking instrument conditions whenever possible and logging approaches etc, 3) relying on a safety pilot or 4) some other way?  

Those of us who make a living flying, don't have to worry about staying legally current.  Our six-month checks take care of that.  However, the proficiency which is checked every 6 months is not in a Mooney.  Instrument proficiency in my minimally equipped Mooney is totally different.  No second pilot, no autopilot, no FMS and no simulator "crash freeze" button.  Happily, I can find someone to fly safety pilot with me in my Mooney from time to time.  I don't usually have to pay them because apparently watching me flounder through the sky is great free entertainment.  

Edited March 31, 2016 by Mooneymite

[Yooper Rocketman]

The original post reminds me of my sister flying up to Alaska for a national 99's meeting with two other woman pilots (3 airplanes).  She was the only one not IFR rated, but they assured her they would "take care of her" as far as helping her fly up there sans an IFR ticket.  She lived in Longmont Colorada at the time, and I'm not sure where she met the other planes, but I think it was in the Rocky Mountain area.  She was flying a Cherokee 180 I had found her a few years earlier.  They made it up to an airport in Canada for an overnight and the morning of the incident the weather was medium overcast, but forecast to be VFR to the next stop.  The front plane in the group was flown by a CFII, my sister flying second position, and the third flown by an IFR SEL pilot.  All planes were about the same speed and they kept track of each other on a predetermined discrete frequency.  About an hour into the flight the weather started closing down, with ceilings and visibility dropping.  They were flying over a main highway, so they told her to just stay over the highway.

A short while into this lowering weather, the front plane announced she was climbing and calling ATC to get an IFR clearance.  She told my sister to turn around and go back to the departing airport, but gave her the ATC Freq just in case she needed it.  Well, she had just seen a tall tower, and needed to give plane three time to turn before taking her 180, and by the time it worked to turn it was getting low enough she no longer felt safe, so she climbed into the soup. Now were talking a VFR pilot who had taken limited IFR training, but due to a recent TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) had only taken the training to be able to fly (with an instructor) while her medical was suspended.  During her IFR training, the CFII told her she would not likely pass the check ride because her cognitive memory skills were not strong enough to handle the stress of IFR flight in busier airspace (talking with controllers, handling approaches, etc).  She suspended her IFR training after maybe 8-10 hours, and that was several years prior to this Alaska trip.

She called ATC, explained her situation, and they immediately dedicated a controller to her.  She climbed to 10,000 feet, but never was able to get on top.  During the climb she heard stall warnings at times, noticed strong banks, dips, and speeds near never exceed.  She told me the only thing that kept her alive was her intense concentration on the AI and airspeed, with a chance look at the DG once in a while.  The controller finally had to assign her vectors, and keep giving her minor corrections to get her headed back to the departing airport.  She eventually settled down and held reasonable altitude and headings, until 30 minutes later when they started giving her descent instructions (all this time in IMC).  She told me the controller's calm voice was the most soothing thing while dealing with this terror, and she felt he clearly saved her life.  As she was descending, he kept telling her what altitude she should break out at (he had a second controller working with him, and he was talking to the airport).  She broke out about 2k feet above the airport and they released her to CTAF, but asked her to call them when she arrived.  They told her the FBO would have the phone number when she got there.

She landed fine, and called as requested, expecting an true butt chewing.  It was quite the opposite.  The controller told her they never expected her to make it, noting usually a VFR pilot would be lucky to live 5 minutes in the soup.  He told her the whole ATC facility was aware of her situation and they all celebrated the final outcome.  I'm not sure if the Canadian controllers do the same awards, but if they do, these guys were surely recognized about 10 years ago when this happened.  When she finally did arrive to the 99's convention, they asked her to speak at the convention.  As a retired physician, she was pretty comfortable in a group setting (and she's a talker), she got up and gave an impressive presentation on her experience.  Seems, if I remember correctly, they may have done an article in their publication as well.

All I know is, as the big brother that mentored her to getting her pilots license, I had a pretty sick feeling in my stomach the night she called me to share that flight.

Tom

[201er]

2 hours ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

The original post reminds me of my sister flying up to Alaska for a national 99's meeting with two other woman pilots (3 airplanes).  She was the only one not IFR rated, but they assured her they would "take care of her" as far as helping her fly up there sans an IFR ticket. 

Pretty disappointing that they talked her into it and then ditched her like that!

I guess the controllers were really smart! By being nice to a pilot that had gone through that ordeal, they not only have a spokesperson for not flying VFR into IMC, but also an encouragement to seek help for those who find themselves needing it!

No amount of trouble you could get into administratively can come close to the amount of trouble you can get into aeronauticaly!

[MyNameIsNobody]

12 hours ago, Yooper Rocketman said:

The original post reminds me of my sister flying up to Alaska for a national 99's meeting with two other woman pilots (3 airplanes).  She was the only one not IFR rated, but they assured her they would "take care of her" as far as helping her fly up there sans an IFR ticket.  She lived in Longmont Colorada at the time, and I'm not sure where she met the other planes, but I think it was in the Rocky Mountain area.  She was flying a Cherokee 180 I had found her a few years earlier.  They made it up to an airport in Canada for an overnight and the morning of the incident the weather was medium overcast, but forecast to be VFR to the next stop.  The front plane in the group was flown by a CFII, my sister flying second position, and the third flown by an IFR SEL pilot.  All planes were about the same speed and they kept track of each other on a predetermined discrete frequency.  About an hour into the flight the weather started closing down, with ceilings and visibility dropping.  They were flying over a main highway, so they told her to just stay over the highway.

A short while into this lowering weather, the front plane announced she was climbing and calling ATC to get an IFR clearance.  She told my sister to turn around and go back to the departing airport, but gave her the ATC Freq just in case she needed it.  Well, she had just seen a tall tower, and needed to give plane three time to turn before taking her 180, and by the time it worked to turn it was getting low enough she no longer felt safe, so she climbed into the soup. Now were talking a VFR pilot who had taken limited IFR training, but due to a recent TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) had only taken the training to be able to fly (with an instructor) while her medical was suspended.  During her IFR training, the CFII told her she would not likely pass the check ride because her cognitive memory skills were not strong enough to handle the stress of IFR flight in busier airspace (talking with controllers, handling approaches, etc).  She suspended her IFR training after maybe 8-10 hours, and that was several years prior to this Alaska trip.

She called ATC, explained her situation, and they immediately dedicated a controller to her.  She climbed to 10,000 feet, but never was able to get on top.  During the climb she heard stall warnings at times, noticed strong banks, dips, and speeds near never exceed.  She told me the only thing that kept her alive was her intense concentration on the AI and airspeed, with a chance look at the DG once in a while.  The controller finally had to assign her vectors, and keep giving her minor corrections to get her headed back to the departing airport.  She eventually settled down and held reasonable altitude and headings, until 30 minutes later when they started giving her descent instructions (all this time in IMC).  She told me the controller's calm voice was the most soothing thing while dealing with this terror, and she felt he clearly saved her life.  As she was descending, he kept telling her what altitude she should break out at (he had a second controller working with him, and he was talking to the airport).  She broke out about 2k feet above the airport and they released her to CTAF, but asked her to call them when she arrived.  They told her the FBO would have the phone number when she got there.

She landed fine, and called as requested, expecting an true butt chewing.  It was quite the opposite.  The controller told her they never expected her to make it, noting usually a VFR pilot would be lucky to live 5 minutes in the soup.  He told her the whole ATC facility was aware of her situation and they all celebrated the final outcome.  I'm not sure if the Canadian controllers do the same awards, but if they do, these guys were surely recognized about 10 years ago when this happened.  When she finally did arrive to the 99's convention, they asked her to speak at the convention.  As a retired physician, she was pretty comfortable in a group setting (and she's a talker), she got up and gave an impressive presentation on her experience.  Seems, if I remember correctly, they may have done an article in their publication as well.

All I know is, as the big brother that mentored her to getting her pilots license, I had a pretty sick feeling in my stomach the night she called me to share that flight.

Tom

Post of the year.  OUTSTANDING!  THIS should be published.  SO GLAD of the outcome.

[MyNameIsNobody]

Good article by Paul B. Regarding an IFR check experience in a basic panel plane.  As a VFR pilot this thread and Paul's words hit home.

[Steve Dietrich]

On 3/30/2016 at 8:13 AM, 1524J said:

 I've convinced myself that I have to push my limits, or get a CFI who will push them so that I practice the engine outs, unusual attitudes, ect. with more frequency than every two years. Left to myself, I'm not going there.

When I first got the Mooney (79) and was having a lot of problems with the FD  going TU I was admonished not to press the unusual attitude practice. I have also seen the same recommendation in writing and expressed by CFI's  and the guro shop.  Turns out the old problem was QC at King .

In later years and living out in the country I decided to ignore the admonition and regularly fly the airplane to  75+ degrees of bank and +60 -60 pitch (but without simultaneous input of large pitch and roll (per tom R)  or exceeding G limits    The FD was still very happy at 1,200 + hours .  Never had the gyro in the KCS-55 fail but it can get unhappy in a sustained hign bank turn. 

I wonder if the  occasional high pitch and  bank was actually good for the FD.  I realize this is a sample size of 1

I'm not recommending that anyone do this but I do feel that the warnings about gyro bearings and such are  overstated and that more practice and conditioning helps to make a better pilot.  Also I think some regular sustained high bank turns helps to build g tolerance, especially with age. 

 

Edited April 1, 2016 by Steve Dietrich

[Steve Dietrich]

On 3/31/2016 at 8:22 AM, flyboy0681 said:

 

Question: Should the engine quit, wouldn't it be good practice to pull the Prop knob all the way back? What the consensus on this?

Usually a very substantial difference.  231 POH calls for minimum and I'm pretty sure that's one of the conditions assumed in the best glide. 

Some aircraft like the T-34A  had a further detent on the prop control that allowed bringing the rpm below the minimum rpm to have power applied  I think it was something like 800RPM